Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1860s replacement of the British copper coinage/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2024 [1].

1860s replacement of the British copper coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another aspect of numismatic history. I never had to use the pre-decimal British bronze coins, since my first UK visit wasn't until 1986, and they were gone 15 years by then. They were considered large and inconvenient, but once they were even larger, and made of easily-worn pure copper. This is how that changedWehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

You had me at "pedantic quibblings" -- will pop in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The copper metal wore or oxidised, or had advertising punched into it: it sounds, particularly in the second clause, as if this was a feature of the coins when made, rather than a defect that emerged over long-term use. I think it would also help to clarify that copper is a soft metal, whereas bronze isn't. We mention durability a bit later, but that's not strictly relevant for punching, and the point would be useful up here.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on, the question of size seems to come up as a major motive, which isn't mentioned in the lead (only weight, which isn't the same thing)
The first paragraph says, "in a variety of sizes".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but it doesn't say that a major motive of the reform was to make the coins physically smaller (as opposed to simply lighter). However, the first sentence of the body names this as the major problem with the copper coinage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage: could we back up a step and explain the who/when/why of the decision to look into decimalisation at all?
Do you mean that the Lsd system was inconvenient or the political motivation that led to the appointment of the Royal Commission?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage come from? Who decided to set it up, when, and why? We've buried the lead at the moment, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as much as you'd think as investigations into decimal currency happened repeatedly in the 19th century. But I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the debate over the inscription get into the lead?
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rarely-seen twopence: MOS:HYPHEN advises rarely seen.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, I get a MOS:SANDWICH between the second and third image, and (slightly) between Victoria and her penny.
I've moved Victoria, which hopefully will take care of that. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix the other issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit radical, but how about putting Boulton's penny where the overstruck one is now, and putting the two "defective" coins together in a double-image template where the worn farthing currently is? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the sets of images shows both sides of a coin. Do you mean a four-image set or something else?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't appreciated that each was two images - but it looks like the |perrow= parameter of the multiple image template can create a two-by-two grid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though not all did as many had the soft copper metal heavily worn: I think this needs a look for clarity. Likewise, slightly, Confusion was increased by coins struck to two other standards also remaining in trade. Happy to suggest alternatives if it would help.
I've taken a swing at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: worth footnoting how many coins he's talking about here?
I guess. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bronze was chosen as harder than pure copper: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical: as it was, I think.
Perhaps it's ENGVAR as the phrasing simply sounds economical of words to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Downing Street?
I am reluctant because I'm not certain where these fireside chats took place. One might assume 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor's residence, but that's only a guess. And not all 19th century Prime Ministers lived at Number Ten, having more comfortable London residences, some had the Chancellor live at #10. I suppose I could research where Gladstone lived in 1860, but we're getting into original research territory if the idea is to pipe to 10 Downing Street or 11. And I'm not sure how useful a link to the street itself would be. I am inclined to say that most people who get this far in this article are going to understand the significance and why Graham felt complimented and let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a link to Downing Street would be good -- the lead sets out that it's historically been the centre of power for the PM/CX (indeed, that's the vast majority of what the lead is), and has The term "Downing Street" is also used as a metonym for the Prime Minister or the British Government more generally. Agreed that we don't need to get into the weeds of which black door was in front of the fireplace in question. Incidentally, if I read the eponymous article right, it seems like Gladstone used 10, 11 and 12, so it's a moot point anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the only place it would add something is in the sums referred to by Gladstone. the other sums are simply the total value of coins and a present value has little relevance. It's the same number of coins regardless of inflation. I'm also dubious of glibly saying that sums over 160 years are equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but I think it's also relevant that the £1,367,963 (as you say, 136,796,300 pennies) produced over the first three years was worth somewhere in the region of £17,389,310,308 in today's money -- in other words, a pretty huge sum. Point taken that inflation isn't a perfect guide to value-in-practice: you could also contextualise by saying that this was about one and a half times the government's annual spending. In either case, when we're throwing around large numbers, it's helpful if readers can have something to peg them to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added inflation templates but kept them off the description of the Malta coin exchange since the face value is only what is relevant, not the present value.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it definitely Britanniarum (of the Britains -- as in Great Britain and Brittany?) rather than Britannorum (of the Britons) in the full inscription? If so, why the plural?
It's Britanniarum, more as Great Britain and Ireland and to some extent the colonies. See this coin. They sometimes spelled it out if there was room.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything, with some clarification requests/comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That commission had been appointed following the advocacy of the Master of the Mint, the scientist Sir John Herschel, who had served on two previous inquiries into decimal coinage, but who resigned as master in 1856, the year of the commission's appointment, due to ill-health: is the bit about his previous service and his resignation strictly relevant here, rather than in his biography?
This is being added in response to your previous comments, regarding who is the force behind having a decimal currency commission. If we mention Herschel and shortly thereafter mention another person as master of the mint, it's useful to explain why that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a vote of £10000: for consistency with other large numbers in this article, use comma separators. See also, later, some £32000.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He reminded members that there was a bill pending before parliament to extend those provisions of law that applied to copper coins: can we outline what (at least the most important of) these were? Is this (for example) making them legal tender, protecting from clipping/forgery etc?
The source mentions forging. I looked at the Hansard for that date and that's what he says.
  • Gladstone expressed his satisfaction with pattern coins that Graham had sent him: with the pattern coins?
I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had appeared on the copper coinage since the reign of Charles II.: suggest adding "in the seventeenth century" to save readers a click if they're not up on their English history.
OK.
  • would be to acknowledge that Britain no longer ruled the waves: I think this needs at least a wikilink to Rule Britannia: it will be completely opaque to readers who don't know the song.
Linecar, other than the one phrase, gives no indication that he's referring to the song.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is the most famous phrase from that song, and one only found in the song. It's a bit like someone saying "Let there be light!" or "Blessed are the cheesemakers" -- they don't need to then tell us they're quoting the Bible. Honestly, I'm surprised that "Britannia rules the waves" isn't a redirect to the song anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One small point: to me, you only acknowledge something that is true ("he acknowledged that he had drunk the tea, but denied eating the biscuits"). Since the late C19th was the high point of British imperial power, I don't think we can really assert "Britannia no longer ruled the waves" as a true statement: either she never did, in which case it's untrue by its conceptions, or she still did, in which case it's untrue. Suggest "would imply that Britain..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "signify".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stood in the quote should be in an em template, rather than simply italics, for the benefit of screen readers.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest clarifying that Osborne House was Victoria and Albert's summer retreat.
I've mentioned it in passing.
  • On 20 February 1860, a question was asked in the House of Commons: any idea who asked it?
It was William Ewart (British politician). I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it, though if you feel it necessary, I'll add a link to the Hansard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I'd prefer the active voice to the passive, and giving information rather than keeping it back: I think adding the name would be an improvement with few costs, but it's hardly make-or-break for the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've recast it as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to the Royal Mint to show Graham two pattern coins for the penny: the second link on this term within this section: is that intentional?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One was likely given to the Queen: more august heads than mine would say this is an Americanism, and push for probably. I'll save them the bother.
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to Buckingham Palace, where both the Queen and Prince Albert criticised the work. He returned on 30 March; Albert was not there but Victoria had slight criticisms: presumably he returned with another go at the job?
Yes, I think this goes without saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it does: it's a sensible inference, but it's not the only possible reading of what's written. For instance, he could have gone on Monday with a coin, received a lot of criticism, then turned up again on Wednesday for another meeting/a social call, and received more criticism of the same work, or found that Victoria had changed her mind, and now only hated it a little bit. Even then, why make the reader work harder than they need to? The oft-repeated dictum that good writing should be like water in a fishbowl springs to mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have made clear I had already modified the text to meet your objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the numismatic scholar, Howard Linecar, it was felt: the way we handle Linecar makes it seem as if he was there at the time: see particularly later According to some accounts, the example that the Queen approved was stolen when posted to the Royal Mint, though Linecar was sceptical of this story. I was surprised to mouse over and find that the source was from the 1970s rather than the 1870s.
I've cut his opinion.
  • Your train set, but I can't see that that was the best solution here: simply rephrasing for tense would have seemed an "easy" fix. Even something like "Linecar has written that this story is probably false" would have solved the second one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got that, but the passage is vaguer than I'd remember so better I think to leave it out.
  • Wyon had been instructed to have the inscription on the coins, to be found on the obverse, to read,: we need to lose the second to ("he was instructed to have the inscription read..."). Might be worth reworking the sentence so that the main verb doesn't have to wait for the subordinate clause to finish.
Reworked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of the Britains, defender of the faith": WP:' advises single quotes (or, better, the gloss template) for glosses. Why is Queen capitalised but nothing else, especially "Defender"? Suggest linking Defender of the Faith.
  • Very minor, but the Latin really ought to go into lang templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software (use |italic=no).
  • the new florin had omitted D.G. (Dei Gratia, by the grace of God) and F.D. (defender of the faith),: we've lost the rather natty small caps here.

On the above three, see if how I have it now is satisfactory.

  • noting that the abbreviation of a plural noun in Latin should have its final consonant doubled: maybe not should in the sense of a moral truth, but perhaps something like "was conventionally indicated by doubling its final letter, if a consonant"? Strictly, by what we've said here, the abbreviation for Bachelor of Arts should be BBA.
I don't personally understand why BRITANNIAR should not be BRITANNIARR by the logic but I looked at the source and it says "required" and apparently Gladstone had been lying in wait on this one for a year so I'm inclined to say that "should" is fair.
Fair enough. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon worked on the master coinage dies : suggest a wikilink for "dies": not a common word?
Fine.00Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was the "Bun" penny: any reason not to roll this one-line paragraph into the one above?
OK.
  • they had not been made current by proclamation: I think we need a link or explanation on "proclamation" to clarify what this means.
OK.
  • The penny weighed 9.45 g and was 30.81 mm in diameter, with the halfpenny 5.66 g and 25.47 mm and the farthing 2.83 g and 20.16 mm: no conversions for the units? Might be best to put them all into a single footnote.
It's my thought that since we earlier mention the weight of the 1797 penny, it may be useful to mention the bronze pieces in main text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes -- I meant the imperial conversions (that is, don't put a bracket after every single metric one: just write a footnote like 'that is, [so many] ounces in weight and [so many] inches in diameter...')
UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com gives the title of the Essex paper as The Essex County Standard.
Fixed.
  • would lead to great public convenience.: suggest a rephrase, as "public convenience" is BrE for "toilet".
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint: this seems to contradict the statement, further up, that the Royal Mint had at least some experience with it, having recently struck bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the Province of Canada.. Could perhaps be solved by clarifying the scale of the latter projects.
That is true. On reference to Peck, the issue seems to be that the Royal Mint was called upon with the British coinage to work faster, en masse, as Peck puts it. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,720 tonnes: suggest an imperial conversion too.
I need to look at the sources and see what is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template documentation advises not to state a publisher's location when it's in the name (so CUP books published in Cambridge shouldn't use |location=).
  • An extension was granted to the colonies as no steps had been taken in some of them to call in old coppers. Originally, the date of demonetisation was to be 30 June 1876, but it was extended to 31 December 1877: another short paragraph that seems to naturally belong with the one before it.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the dash in the title of Dyer 1982.
I think I've fixed that but I have trouble distinguishing such things by eye, so if it's the wrong dash, just show me what the proper one is and I'll change it.
There are a few not done, the images and the tonnes and the conversion template, I'll finish on Thursday. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for a first go: back to you.

I've finished the last three and also the Rule Britannia. I think that's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting after some very minor copyedits: very nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments to start:

  • Craig: To make it easier for readers to find the book, I think it's worth spelling out the title: The Mint: A History of the London Mint from A.D. 287 to 1948.
  • Wikilink British Numismatic Journal?
  • Dyer 1982: Capitalize the title per MOS:TITLECAPS and replace the hyphen with an en-dash per MOS:RANGE
  • Dyer 1982: The article appears to begin on page 234, not 232
  • Dyer and Gaspar 1992: I think it is worth using the whole chapter title: "Reform, the New Technology and Tower Hill, 1700–1966".
  • Fremantle 1877: The link goes to a text search for "Malta". This link to the title page seems more appropriate.
  • Same for Fremantle 1878 (a search for "copper"): This link seems better.
  • Same for Fremantle 1879 (another search for "copper"): I recommend this link.

I'll keep working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have addressed my above comments. Here are more:

  • Fremantle 1877: The publication year appears to have disappeared.
  • Spink & Son: The library listings I'm seeing for this book list Emma Howard as editor. You have it listed under Spink as the author. Shouldn't the editor's name be included and shouldn't it be listed under that name?
  • Not a source review comment: The Chamber's Journal quote is long enough it should be a blockquote, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
  • The Hansard article italicizes the name, but the citation doesn't. Perhaps it should be listed as the title and not the publisher.
  • Little was done in Cape Colony in South Africa or in New Zealand to call in the coppers sounds a little too interpretive to me to be supported by a primary source like Fremantle 1879, per WP:PRIMARY. When I clicked the link to that report and went to page 10, I couldn't find any mention Cape Colony, South Africa, or New Zealand. Is the citation wrong or am I missing something?
Should have read 1878 rather than 1879. It is fixed. Fremantle's reports are considered authoritative in their field, there's a discussion of that in our article on him which I wrote. He would be in a position to know these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. I see how page 10 of Fremantle 1878 supports the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The books are all held by academic libraries, with the exception of the Fremantle reports, which as primary sources are being used appropriately per WP:PRIMARY, with the one possible exception raised in my comment above. Some of the articles are from the British Numismatic Journal, which seems reputable. The other articles are from primary periodicals that I think are being used appropriately. For a fairly short article, the list of sources seems to represent a decent breadth of scholarship, supplemented by fair use of primary sources. The citation style looks consistent. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made one comment and done the remainder. Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added Emma Howard as editor but kept Spink & Son as the author of Coins of England. Worldcat lists Spink as publisher only and lists no author, filing instead under Howard's name as editor. Do you think it's more appropriate to keep Spink as author and file it in the list that way? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an series, now annual, that began in 1929 and has had various editors over the years (I have a copy of the 2004 edition, editor Philip Skingley). The only name that appears on the cover is Spink, as it is the only name on the title page. Howard's name appears only once, in a note on page vi. In neither the 2023 edition nor the 2004 is the editor's name on the cover or prominently mentioned. I think it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author. Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I consider this source review a pass. I invite you to take a look at my current FAC nomination, which still needs reviews. Thanks in advance if you're able to leave since comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
Alt text added and image swapped. Thank you. Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

With regard to Wehwalt's introductory remarks, above – none of which I dispute – nonetheless, the satisfying sound of the clunk of big copper pennies into GPO telephones in phone boxes remains with me sixty years later. (And I still think of 50p as ten bob.) Be that as it may, I read almost to the end of the article before finding anything to quibble about, try as I might (and God knows I did). But in the paragraph beginning "The Royal Mint offered a premium of 2 percent…" I have three minor points. First, in BrE it is usual to render "per cent" as two words; secondly, I don't see why the deputy master of the Mint should be deprived of the capitalisation his senior, the Master, gets; and thirdly "this was done effective 31 July" is not familiar BrE: "this was done with effect from…" would be the normal BrE. Hardly earth-shaking, and I have no hesitation in supporting the elevation of this article, which I read with great enjoyment and from which I learned a lot. First rate, even by Wehwalt's superb standards. Tim riley talk 22:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support, with a few very minor comments:

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though not all did as many were lightened by having the soft copper metal heavily worn": suggest "though many had become lightened as the soft copper metal was often heavily worn" -- to avoid misparsing this while reading as meaning that there were two types of this coin.
Done but phrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advertising disfigurements are an interesting note. Any chance of an image of one such?
The coin late in the background section is the best one I have available to me. I have access to the images of Heritage Auctions but they don't seem to have sold a really nice one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To correlate the metric and Imperial systems, 10 pennies, 12 halfpennies or 15 farthings laid side by side measured 1 foot (0.30 m)." I'm not sure what this sentence is telling me. Is it just a restatement of their lengths, presented in a different way? If so I'm not sure we need it.
The Royal Mint chose diameters so that a certain number of coins side by side equalled one foot. I suppose rulers were less common than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as reproduced in the Essex County Standard": does this caveat need to be in the body text? It's noted in the form of the citation.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mujinga

[edit]

Commenting on this version I'm finding some source/text integrity issues:

  • 1 text: On 4 August 1859, Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, obtained a vote of £10,000 (equivalent to £1,265,000 in 2023) to be used to replace the copper coinage.
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263.: it was not until 4 August 1859 that Gladstone, as chancellor of the exchequer, obtained from Parliament a vote of £10,000 for replacing the old copper with new coins in bronze
  • that's too close for me, "obtained" really sticks out
I've had a go at changing that, but the reason I stuck to the text is that "obtained" might be technical parliamentary language.
It's not. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 text: Literary Digest hoped for something that would be a credit to the country, and that would show the Queen, by then a grandmother, as "more matronly"; The Mechanics' Magazine similarly wanted the new coins to "tell the truth".[11]
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263: The Literary Gazette hoped for 'something really creditable to the country' and in particular that the queen, a grandmother in ripe middle age, would be represented with a 'somewhat more matronly aspect'.7 A similar view was expressed in the Mechanics' Magazine, which also wanted the portrait of the queen to 'tell the truth'
  • again too close, also Literary Gazette not Digest and it's a bit unclear how the new coins would tell the truth in the wikiversion
I've played with the language some but again, the possible synonyms are meager. I think it's pretty clear they wanted the new coins to show the Queen as a woman of over forty as she was, rather than the woman she had been in 1839, Ive touched up the language. Sorry about the Digest/Gazette.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
language works for me, The Literary Gazette can be linked? Mujinga (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 text blockquote: what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence [24 pieces]: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, and that numerous but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • source "Our Copper Coinage". Chamber's Journal. 29 December 1860. p. 6. Retrieved 16 June 2024 – via The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser and Newspapers.com : what a bruised, BATTERED, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, OR that but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • differences capitalised
Fixed, regrettably I had to copy this manually and I obviously made a mistake or two--Wehwalt (talk)
  • 4 text: On 16 July, Gladstone was questioned in the Commons about the delays; he attributed the problems to "a mysterious secret of art"
  • Source: Even so, difficulties continued and in reply to a further question in parliament on 16 July Gladstone rather grandly attributed the delay to 'a mysterious secret of art
  • not particularly bad but "attributed" could be changed
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 text: There was considerable reaction, much of it focused on the use of BRITT. There were rumours that this was an error, and that the coins would soon be called in. BRITT had appeared on the sixpences and shillings of 1817, but BRIT on the current issue of florins
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, pp. 269–270: 269: There were the inevitable rumours, denied in The Times, that the coins were to be recalled, and in particular controversy was provoked by the double T of BRITT. 270: It was a controversy which would have interested Sainthill, who long ago had written inapproval of the use of BRITT on the sixpences and shillings of 1816.
  • 1816 not 1817
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 text: The Mechanics' Magazine felt that Wyon had captured the Queen's features adequately, but there was something inaccurate about the form of her head. It disliked the rendition of Britannia, though stating that Wyon had done the best he could. Other than these criticisms, it felt that the new coins were a complete success
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 270: The Britannia, as expected, was not at all to the Magazine's taste and it could say no more than that the artist had done the best he could with her. 'In all other senses than the artistic', however, 'the new bronze pieces may be regarded as a complete success'.
  • it is backed Dyer & Gaspar 1984 but by p269 and the "complete success" phrase is a direct quotation
I've changed those.

I did in total 9 checks, three were ok and six were not. This is a concerning number of errors and I'm wondering if I'll find more if I continue. Stopping here and I will oppose for now Mujinga (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check every source and get back to you when I have. Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, would you take another look. I've checked the sources and made a number of edits. I'm not sure that we are going to agree on every phrase, but go take a look. If you need the wording of an offline source, or want page images, please let me know and if the latter, send me an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, should be able to do more on tuesday or wednesday. Mujinga (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, so on sources, checking this version:

  • 18: After Wyon had worked on designs for both sides of the coins, he went to the royal residence at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight on 7 December 1859, where, according to Wyon, Victoria "sat, or rather stood, to me, and told me that she would do so again when I was ready".[18]
  • fine
  • 39: The weight of the penny was halved, so that 48 of them would weigh a pound avoirdupois (454g), and it was made thinner to make it as large in diameter as possible. Out of concerns that the farthing would be too small if it were lightened to the same standard, that coin and the halfpenny were put on a standard so that 40 pence worth would weigh a pound avoirdupois. The Royal Mint were concerned that the public would object to the new bronze coins as having metal worth considerably less than their face values, but found that the public did not expect a penny to contain copper worth a penny.[39]
  • source - Craig p324
    could you take me through where the cited information comes from on p324? Mujinga (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weight of the penny was halved, so that 48 of them would weigh a pound avoirdupois (454g)", from "The occasion was taken to halve the weight of the penny ... At the new weights, 48d. in pence or 40d. in halfpence or farthings weighed a pound avoirdupois."
  • "and it was made thinner to make it as large in diameter as possible." from "the penny was made very thin, indeed too thin for good minting practice, in order that it might look as large and important as before".
  • "Out of concerns that the farthing would be too small if it were lightened to the same standard, that coin and the halfpenny were put on a standard so that 40 pence worth would weigh a pound avoirdupois. From "For fear lest the full reductions would make the farthings too small" and "The occasion was taken to halve the weight of the penny ... At the new weights, 48d. in pence or 40d. in halfpence or farthings weighed a pound avoirdupois."
  • "The Royal Mint were concerned that the public would object to the new bronze coins as having metal worth considerably less than their face values, but found that the public did not expect a penny to contain copper worth a penny.[39] this is from "" from "Complaints had been made at intervals of the weight of coppers, which the doctrine of intrinsic value had kept up almost to the level of 1672. The weight of the penny was halved, ... Apprehensions were unfounded; belief in intrinsic value of minor token coinage was dead." Remember that this book is The Mint and takes the Royal Mint's perspective implicitly, so it is their apprehensions. The doctrine of intrinsic value is that the coins should contain metal worth the face value, obviously halving them makes them "considerably less" than they were (and the passage says that the Mint had not been fully keeping up to face value), and the beliefs plainly those of the public.
  • 54/55: Remaining "Bun" halfpennies ceased to be legal tender on 31 July 1969,[54] and the farthing after 31 December 1960.[55]
  • source - lobel p604 & p615
  • could you email page images for the last two please? I'll send you a request by email as well Mujinga (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    54/55 checks out. is it possible to adapt the phrase "ceased to be legal tender" which is also used in the source? Mujinga (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Mujinga (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some prose comments:

  • farthing and halfpenny not linked on first mention in text
  • "It was awarded to James Watt & Co of Birmingham." - link to James Watt or Boulton and Watt?::No. The later firm had nothing to do with the original James Watt or with Boulton and Watt, except it was owned by Watt's descendants.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • wl Ralph Heaton & Sons
  • wl avoirdupois
  • "The Bun penny, with Wyon's obverse, and its analogue for the halfpenny and farthing .... Remaining "Bun" halfpennies ceased to be legal tender on 31 July 1969" -why Bun penny and "Bun" halfpennies?
The calling-in dates are for all coins of those denominations, of course including the Bun coins (since ALL halfpennies etc were called in, that adequately supports the proposition that the Bun halfpennies etc were.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear - I was asking why Bun sometimes has apostrophes and sometimes not Mujinga (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • obviously it's hard to avoid using the word coin, but in the lead it becomes a bit reptitive here - "The reverse side of the coin featured Britannia, as Wyon had been directed. There was initially some controversy over the Latin abbreviations in the inscriptions on the coins, with some believing that there were errors that might require the new coins to be withdrawn. With the aid of two outside firms, the Royal Mint struck sufficient of the new bronze coins that it started calling in the copper coins in 1861, a process complete after 1877, though less than half, in terms of value, of the extant coppers were paid in.", I'd suggest " The reverse side featured Britannia, as Wyon had been directed. There was initially some controversy over the Latin abbreviations in the inscriptions, with some believing that there were errors that might require the new coins to be withdrawn. With the aid of two outside firms, the Royal Mint struck sufficient of the new bronze pieces that it started calling in the copper coins in 1861, a process complete after 1877, though less than half, in terms of value, of the extant coppers were paid in."
I've done it slightly differently but in the same spirit. I think I'm up to date again. If I haven't commented, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, switching to support Mujinga (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Marker for now - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Had a few other bits to clear up first: I'll be here in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. 750h+ 12:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification.[reply]

lead
  • 1797 in a variety of sizes, all of which were seen as too large ==> "1797 in various sizes, which were seen as too large" (conciseness)
  • who modelled for him multiple times, and who let her ==> "who modelled for him multiple times and let her "
  • until the run-up to decimalisation in 1971 is there a point of "run-up to"? just asking
Since only the penny was a legal tender on 14 February 1971, I don't want people coming back to me. The abolition of the farthing was mostly unrelated to decimalisation, though it did free up the size slot filled by the 1p.
background
  • bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the remove the second "for"
Disagree, it would create confusion as to whether the Mint actually was creating coins good in both Nova Scotia AND in the Province of Canada, or (as was the case) separate issues.
preparation
  • credit to the country, and that remove comma
  • had not yet completed the work, and that remove the comma
  • He found, though, he did not have add a comma before "he"
There is one. Are you sure?
oops, my bad
  • room for F.D., unless he shortened remove the comma
release and reaction
  • this was an error, and that remove the comma
  • success":[35] their lightness, and the remove the comma
production and aftermath
  • Rapid, large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint, and several difficulties were encountered at the start, resulting in broken or prematurely-worn coinage dies. I'd split, this sentence is pretty long. What about, "Rapid, large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint. Several difficulties were encountered at the start, resulting in broken or prematurely-worn coinage dies."
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • broken or prematurely-worn coinage should there be a hyphen
Several UK-based editors have looked at the article and haven't commented on that. This is the sort of fine point that I let others tell me of.
  • their face values, but found remove the comma just for consistency with other parts of the article
  • there are a large number of ==> "there were a large number of"
No, the varieties still exist and are collected.

That's all I got. Thanks for the article, @Wehwalt:. 750h+ 12:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. All done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Sources: How are you deciding whether to give a publisher location or not? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to omit them. I don't think where a publisher was many years ago is that helpful to the reader. Done. Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.

The last source, I am not enthusiastic about "author=Spink & Son Ltd". Is that deliberate? It is more normal to list by editor. As you have in the actual cites. (And having another source with the first name of Howard is just odd!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the Howard (surname) issue above. "This is a series, now annual, that began in 1929 and has had various editors over the years (I have a copy of the 2004 edition, editor Philip Skingley). The only name that appears on the cover is Spink, as it is the only name on the title page. Howard's name appears only once, in a note on page vi. In neither the 2023 edition nor the 2004 is the editor's name on the cover or prominently mentioned. I think it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author."
Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but the instructions for Template:Sfn it says that for the second sfn parameter give the "surname of first author or corporate author" and you have used "Howard", who you do not consider to be the author. Why not 'Spink & Son Ltd' as in the list of sources if "it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author"? I may be expressing myself poorly, but I don't see why the author in the sfn and in the source list aren't the same. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've made them consistent, I hope. Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage/archive1&oldid=1254221993"